site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2d ago (text post)   1755 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for May 10, 2026

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

1
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Why hasn't USA and Israel cut the cables that connect Iran to the rest of the internet. I don't see any downsides for them and it is a nice way to counter the state imposed blackout.

Which cables, the cables in the straits of Hormuz that Iran is busily enacting new rules for the control and maintenance of, mandating that Iranian companies must be selected for work there, fees must be paid to Iran? The cables that carry a huge chunk of global data?

The US can't play cards from the Iranian deck, cables are an Iranian card. The Iranians have the cards here!

Why would you cut off cables to a country that's already under internet blackout? Many have already been cut/damaged by various wars. The ones Iran still has are at a small fraction of capacity right now. Cutting them does tiny damage to Iran and Iran will counter by cutting cables that do a lot more damage to the Gulf and the West.

"Well, officer, I saw he had multiple stab wounds, so I broke a couple fingers. Helps to counter the bleeding."

I don't think this would accomplish what you seem to expect.

Right now Iranian elite have internet while the plebs no. It is the same as with the US imposed blockade. For the US interests is best if no one has internet in Iran than only some. Aka showing that it is on US terms.

It would probably be bad PR

To play devil's advocate: neither administration has expressed much concern with PR up to this point.

I don't think that's true - I think the USA and Israel are both intensely concerned with PR and constrain themselves accordingly, at the same time they have massive structural disadvantages that make losing the PR battle inevitable. This tension is part of the at times incoherent strategy we see.

For example: the Trump administration clearly wants the Iranian people to rise up (and they likely do want to rise up) so their hands are tied with respect to certain kinds of action that would reduce that possibility. They won't be given any media credit for these decisions, and that media credit is part of what is supposed to circle back to create interest in rebellion in the country.

I really do think that anti-Trump and anti-semitic media bias is worsening and prolonging the conflict.

Circling back to OP's comment - the black out isn't total. I'll be vague for OPSEC reasons (not because it's actually necessary but because the Iranian's involved are intensely paranoid about their government and I will respect that) - certain people in certain industries that aren't really personally or professionally regime aligned are still given access to the outside internet. This allows them consumption of foreign propaganda and communication with members of the diaspora abroad. Some of the those with access are absolutely the kinds of people you might suspect as being aligned with resistance elements.

You'd also have to imagine the U.S. government is taking advantage of this.

So no, shutting off the internet does have downsides, even if some of the benefits are not materializing.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats